Horizontal Shareholding within the European Competition Law Framework: Assessment and a Way Forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horizontal shareholding engenders significant anticompetitive effects which current economic trends are exacerbating. Literature and institutions in Europe have yet to establish whether a suitable instrument within European competition law exists which may be applied to horizontal shareholding in order to curtail its intrinsic anticompetitive effects. This Article evaluates the state of the debate, analyses European competition law instruments, and shows that no adequate instrument is available. Ultimately, it proposes a novel approach to the notion of collective dominance suitable to support enforcement against horizontal shareholding on the basis of Article 102 TFEU. This material was first published by Thomson Reuters, trading as Sweet & Maxwell, 5 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AQ, in European Competition Law Review and is reproduced by agreement with the publishers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".